7 ms·

Sponsorless kits look so good. I wish that was the norm. The financial realities of the modern game make that a pipe dream though.

by tbrake 3y ago

rcme 3y ago
What are the realities, that the ownership wants more money?
- bidirectional 3y ago
  Clubs' spending must be tied to their revenue, foregoing sponsorship money would force them to spend less no matter what, and there's a continuos arms race to spend more and more. Also, practically all football club ownership is a loss-making activity.
  - JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
    > > Clubs' spending must be tied to their revenue Which is a folly. How can Stoke-on-Trent ever compete with London. Even if London market is fragmented in 6 or more clubs it's still much much bigger. Fans of small teams are left hoping that some entrepreneur from their town wins big on the stock market and then decides to buy some love with the help of clever lawyers to circumvent the Financial Fair Play.
  - rcme 3y ago
    Hmm that's interesting. I didn't realize European leagues differed so greatly from U.S. leagues. U.S. leagues like the NBA and NHL are introducing jersey advertisements, but it's purely about earning more money. Most (all?) U.S. leagues have some type of salary cap to keep player compensation down.
    - mbreese 3y ago
      US leagues have salary caps built into their player union bargaining agreements and built into the league structure itself. In Europe where you have many teams, many leagues, and a wide variety of ownership groups (from millionaires up to literal country sovereign wealth funds), they maintain some semblance of "fairness" through financial fair play rules. This basically means that the teams are only allowed to spend on players (roughly) the same amount of money that they bring in as revenue. The revenue can be through tickets, concessions (I think), sponsorship deals, shirts/kits, etc... So in a very real way, having a big-money shirt sponsor directly impacts the quality of the players that a team can sign. In the US, spending caps are set and enforced in other ways.
  - ghusto 3y ago
    Heaven forbid it ever went back to being about the sport.
meinersbur 3y ago
It's not sponsorless. Nike and ebay are still featured.
- tbrake 3y ago
  Fair. Should have been more specific about meaning the shirt sponsor.
- Larrikin 3y ago
  A Nike shirt with a Nike logo on it isn't a problem. I would never buy a jersey with a big digital blur logo on it unless they spent decades innovating in the fashion industry on top of their crypto junk.
  - BeetleB 3y ago
    > A Nike shirt with a Nike logo on it isn't a problem. I'm paying for an overpriced shirt, and giving them free advertising? No thank you.
    - Arrath 3y ago
      Just curious, do you rip any and all branding off of products you buy? Badges from the car, logos on backpacks, etc?
      - ghusto 3y ago
        I don't buy anything with a brand logo on it myself, and see it the same way; it's advertising space for something I already paid for. I've honestly thought about the car thing too, after I saw a car without a make on it (I think it was a custom built thing for some super-rich guy). I was thinking about replacing the logo with something fun, but couldn't be bothered to figure out what it meant for the insurance (believe it or not, it can mean something).
      - BeetleB 3y ago
        Shirts - I typically don't buy any that has branding visible while wearing. If I have any, it was an oversight on my part. It just occurred to me my jeans likely do. If I can find a clean way to remove them, I'll do it. Car: Good point. I guess I won't as it will affect the resale value (and cost money to remove it properly). But when buying a car, if I get the option to get the same car without the name, badge, etc - I'd take that option. Backpacks: Rarely use them, but you have a point. If I can cleanly remove them or buy quality ones in the future that don't have a logo, I'll do it. I suppose I could just put duct tape on the logo. Note: I'm not against people intentionally keeping the logo if they want to promote the brand - this is not a moral crusade on my part. I just want the product at a cheaper price if I am going to provide them with free advertising.
faaabio1618 3y ago
That's actually the first time that cryptocurrencies fix a real problem.
JohnFen 3y ago
The overwhelming level of sponsorships is one of the two main things that drove me away from sports generally, if I'm honest.
- canadianfella 3y ago
  [dead]
- dmitryminkovsky 3y ago
  And the other?
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I get very creeped out by the tribalism exhibited by sports fans.
    - JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
      Still better than the tribalism exhibited by SV companies fans.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        Similar effect, yes, but sports fans come off (to me) as more extreme. I've never seen someone hate another because they chose the wrong brand of phone, for instance, but I've absolutely seen people hate other people for choosing the wrong team.
danlugo92 3y ago
I loved the Unicef logo in the Barcelona shirt years ago, made the design more balanced without it being a cashgrab.
- soneca 3y ago
  I think that was just a transition from being a club supposedly proud of not accepting shirt sponsorships to a club that accepts them. In a way, it was a PR step to cash grabbing.
rikthevik 3y ago
Sure there are financial realities, but sometimes the sponsor and the logo fits the vibe of the team really nicely. Inter and Pirelli, Barca and Unicef, Arsenal and O2, Newcastle and... Newcastle. Credit where credit's due, the NHL has some really great jerseys going on right now.
madmax108 3y ago
For sports like F1 where there's a lot of $$$ that goes into running the sport itself, it's still understandable, but I always find it funny when you have cricket players (which is huge in India where I'm from) walk out with a dozen logos plastered on them [1], though the sport is much "cheaper" to conduct. But then again, finance bros be making money while the sun shines I guess, and I assume these companies getting their logos in front of a billion eyes is enough RoI for them. [1]: https://www.kreedon.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1.jpeg https://www.kreedon.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1.jpeg

Sponsorless kits look so good. I wish that was the norm. The financial realities of the modern game make that a pipe dream though.

by tbrake 3y ago

Sponsorless kits look so good. I wish that was the norm. The financial realities of the modern game make that a pipe dream though.

rcme 3y ago

What are the realities, that the ownership wants more money?

bidirectional 3y ago
Clubs' spending must be tied to their revenue, foregoing sponsorship money would force them to spend less no matter what, and there's a continuos arms race to spend more and more. Also, practically all football club ownership is a loss-making activity.
- JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
  > > Clubs' spending must be tied to their revenue Which is a folly. How can Stoke-on-Trent ever compete with London. Even if London market is fragmented in 6 or more clubs it's still much much bigger. Fans of small teams are left hoping that some entrepreneur from their town wins big on the stock market and then decides to buy some love with the help of clever lawyers to circumvent the Financial Fair Play.
- rcme 3y ago
  Hmm that's interesting. I didn't realize European leagues differed so greatly from U.S. leagues. U.S. leagues like the NBA and NHL are introducing jersey advertisements, but it's purely about earning more money. Most (all?) U.S. leagues have some type of salary cap to keep player compensation down.
  - mbreese 3y ago
    US leagues have salary caps built into their player union bargaining agreements and built into the league structure itself. In Europe where you have many teams, many leagues, and a wide variety of ownership groups (from millionaires up to literal country sovereign wealth funds), they maintain some semblance of "fairness" through financial fair play rules. This basically means that the teams are only allowed to spend on players (roughly) the same amount of money that they bring in as revenue. The revenue can be through tickets, concessions (I think), sponsorship deals, shirts/kits, etc... So in a very real way, having a big-money shirt sponsor directly impacts the quality of the players that a team can sign. In the US, spending caps are set and enforced in other ways.
- ghusto 3y ago
  Heaven forbid it ever went back to being about the sport.

meinersbur 3y ago

It's not sponsorless. Nike and ebay are still featured.

tbrake 3y ago
Fair. Should have been more specific about meaning the shirt sponsor.
Larrikin 3y ago
A Nike shirt with a Nike logo on it isn't a problem. I would never buy a jersey with a big digital blur logo on it unless they spent decades innovating in the fashion industry on top of their crypto junk.
- BeetleB 3y ago
  > A Nike shirt with a Nike logo on it isn't a problem. I'm paying for an overpriced shirt, and giving them free advertising? No thank you.
  - Arrath 3y ago
    Just curious, do you rip any and all branding off of products you buy? Badges from the car, logos on backpacks, etc?
    - ghusto 3y ago
      I don't buy anything with a brand logo on it myself, and see it the same way; it's advertising space for something I already paid for. I've honestly thought about the car thing too, after I saw a car without a make on it (I think it was a custom built thing for some super-rich guy). I was thinking about replacing the logo with something fun, but couldn't be bothered to figure out what it meant for the insurance (believe it or not, it can mean something).
    - BeetleB 3y ago
      Shirts - I typically don't buy any that has branding visible while wearing. If I have any, it was an oversight on my part. It just occurred to me my jeans likely do. If I can find a clean way to remove them, I'll do it. Car: Good point. I guess I won't as it will affect the resale value (and cost money to remove it properly). But when buying a car, if I get the option to get the same car without the name, badge, etc - I'd take that option. Backpacks: Rarely use them, but you have a point. If I can cleanly remove them or buy quality ones in the future that don't have a logo, I'll do it. I suppose I could just put duct tape on the logo. Note: I'm not against people intentionally keeping the logo if they want to promote the brand - this is not a moral crusade on my part. I just want the product at a cheaper price if I am going to provide them with free advertising.

faaabio1618 3y ago

That's actually the first time that cryptocurrencies fix a real problem.

JohnFen 3y ago

The overwhelming level of sponsorships is one of the two main things that drove me away from sports generally, if I'm honest.

canadianfella 3y ago
[dead]
dmitryminkovsky 3y ago
And the other?
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I get very creeped out by the tribalism exhibited by sports fans.
  - JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
    Still better than the tribalism exhibited by SV companies fans.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      Similar effect, yes, but sports fans come off (to me) as more extreme. I've never seen someone hate another because they chose the wrong brand of phone, for instance, but I've absolutely seen people hate other people for choosing the wrong team.

danlugo92 3y ago

I loved the Unicef logo in the Barcelona shirt years ago, made the design more balanced without it being a cashgrab.

soneca 3y ago
I think that was just a transition from being a club supposedly proud of not accepting shirt sponsorships to a club that accepts them. In a way, it was a PR step to cash grabbing.

rikthevik 3y ago

Sure there are financial realities, but sometimes the sponsor and the logo fits the vibe of the team really nicely. Inter and Pirelli, Barca and Unicef, Arsenal and O2, Newcastle and... Newcastle. Credit where credit's due, the NHL has some really great jerseys going on right now.

madmax108 3y ago

For sports like F1 where there's a lot of $$$ that goes into running the sport itself, it's still understandable, but I always find it funny when you have cricket players (which is huge in India where I'm from) walk out with a dozen logos plastered on them [1], though the sport is much "cheaper" to conduct. But then again, finance bros be making money while the sun shines I guess, and I assume these companies getting their logos in front of a billion eyes is enough RoI for them. [1]: https://www.kreedon.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1.jpeg https://www.kreedon.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/1.jpeg